The two differences between Cramer and most of the other guest hosts are:
1.) He freely admits when he screwed the pooch on a position (case in point--riding Cendant down). Most of these clowns act as if they've never made a bad call in their lives and quickly change the subject if they're questioned on a Cendant-type call they made earlier.
2.) He never straddles the fence. After watching him on Squawk, you know exactly where he thinks the market is going.
I sometimes don't agree with his opinions, but I admire his guts to "tell it like it is." Too often these guys try to hedge their statements with "well, I guess KO could go higher...but then again, it might go lower..." and then follow with a bunch of worthless gibberish. Vis-a-vis Cramer, when asked if he's buying Internet stocks (for instance), will tell you, in three sentences or less, if he's buying them, why he's buying them, and which ones he likes. And the guy's entertaining to boot.
Rogers is just flat out annoying. I will faint the day he says "Yes I was wrong on a call." The only entertainment value he has is watching even Kathleen Hayes slice him up to pieces, and I did not think that was possible. I think the only reason they bring him back is that Kernan and Haynes seem to get a kick out of watching him dig himself deeper and deeper into a hole, as he extolls the virtues of his "The whole world is wrong, I am right" sermons.
Gary |
